| |
BGonline.org Forums
Attempt at clarification
Posted By: Jakob Garal In Response To: Attempt at clarification (Taper_Mike)
Date: Tuesday, 13 January 2015, at 1:57 p.m.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad or wrong definitions of some basic conceptions everybody used.
For example, "game" has a lot of definitions => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game.
I prefer this one: French sociologist Roger Caillois defined a game as an activity that must have the following characteristics: fun: (...); separate: (...); uncertain: the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable; non-productive:(...); governed by rules:(...); fictitious:(...).
From this definition chess can not be represent like a game, because it has not included one of the important features => the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable. Nobody from this forum can win against world champion in chess and there are no people in the world who can beat last version of computer programm Rybka. And we know which result will be, if Rybka plays against itself => a draw! If the outcome is forseeable, then it is not a game.
From this point of view it is impossible to compare backgammon => a game of skill and chess => not a game.
From another side we have specific definition of "game of chance (or luck)", that describes some activities with roullette, slot machines etc.
My point of view for huge differencies between "game of skills" and "game of chance" is follow: experienced player has definitive advantage against unexperienced player in "game of skills" (his win chance is more than 50%) and in "game of chance" unexperienced player has equal chance to win against experienced player (50%:50%).
And the most experienced players are ready to play for money in game of skills, because they are ready play responsibly! If somebody call that like "gambling" game then it changes nothing. What's more => those, who play for money, have to understand from the game more in difference for those, who plays for fun.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.